Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

[WebHead]

You're missing the entire god damn point. I believe most people will call marriage a union between two consenting, of age, human adults. You want to through bestiality & incest and all that in there, you're just proving that you don't have a valid argument, and you're grabbing at straws.

Incest and group marriage can involve consenting, of age, human adults. Should those be allowed? I don't feel I'm grabbing at straws. I'm just trying to point out that if gay marriage starts becoming accepted, then whats next?

Put it this way,... why is this an issue now, but it wasn't for the last who knows how many years? Was it because we are smarter now? Was it because we were too lazy to deal with the issue before? What is the difference between now and then?

This is all just a political ploy to generate more money. More marriage equals more divorce. More divorce means higher demand for lawyers and judges. More lawyers and judges mean more money flowing through the economy. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, but I do think it will eventually mean more taxes for me to pay.

Personally,.. if it were up to me, I would just abolish marriage all together. It's become a mockery and basically serves no purpose now. People do whatever they want despite the law anyway,.. so who needs it.

[Jediab]

Webby does make a point.

I do think it is funny to see people who bash hetero marriage by saying the divorce rates are so high, infidelity, abuse blah blah blah. (I am not saying these people are anyone in this thread. It is from other threads I have read about this issue.)They try to make marriage look like it isn't that big of deal, and has deteriorated into nothing of value, while at the same time say it is so important for gay marriages. So if it is nothing of value, why the argument? I would think the answer would be clear based upon what was said about hetero marriages.

[cisco2]

Webby does make a good point, who is to say it will stop at gay unions? Once marriage is allowed to be legally redefined once, it may continue to devolve.

I don't pretend to be wise enough to know all ends and have the right answer.

It is apparent that gay people who wish to form a civil union do not receive all the benefits of a classic marriage. Much as I don't like to think about what gay couples do in their private moments, I don't think it is right to discriminate against them.

Perhaps marriage should be protected, however, some legal equivalent, universally recognized as an institution that carries the same legal commitments and benefits as marriage should be available. Not just to gay people, maybe couples who don't want children or who believe marriage doesn't conform to their views of faith would like an alternative. As I understand, though I'm certainly not well versed in the subject, civil unions in their current "separate but equal" status are not even close to equal. I think that should be fixed. Perhaps not at the expense of the time honored institution of marriage though.

Be that as it may, this thread has devolved back into a discussion on whether or not gay people should be allowed to be married.

My real point in starting it was to make clear my outrage at anyone wanting to use the Constitution as a vehicle of denial. The Constitution is there to protect rights and freedoms and liberties. Not take them away.

Laws that do not conflict with Constitutionally guaranteed rights are needed by society to protect individuals from harm or infringment upon life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not gay unions can or should be called marriage or redefined under another name or outlawed entirely is not an issue that should be resolved with another mistake like the 18th Amendment.

[cookin chef]

Just another change phasing in. People and other special interest groups from both sides will argue, debate, share their opinions, vent their frustrations etc.

5 years from now, this will be a normal thing.

Won't be long where people want to marry donkeys, etc. and that will be normal???

[arch0nmyc0n]

Webby does make a good point, who is to say it will stop at gay unions? Once marriage is allowed to be legally redefined once, it may continue to devolve.

Actually I was figurin it was actually evolving... I still think they should just make a civil union the same thing just a different word. Again in this conversation a lot of emphasis is placed on the word. Personal I think it's ludicrious to be so sensitive about a word, but fair enough... When it comes down to it cookin chef is right regardless of what we think now, a decade from now things will be different and we'll be that much close to "hell" as some people seem to think...


PS Is there laws prohibiting gay marraige? I've never looked into it. I remember people mentioning some state had laws against sodomy, but is there specific against gay marriage.

[meatwad]

Since the marriage is a legal contract with the state under which you can enjoy protection of assets and potential tax breaks and insurance is typicaly extended to a spouse, doesn't this constitute something unfair for gay couples if they are not allowed to partake in the same legal contract?

Not if they're inelligible.

ex. I'm currently employed. Therefore I'm not legally entitled to unemployment benefits.

[Escape_Driver]

My big worry with this is abuse of the system...

Room mates getting married because it is better for there taxes and benifits...

How do you prove that ?

[arch0nmyc0n]

My big worry with this is abuse of the system...

Room mates getting married because it is better for there taxes and benifits...

How do you prove that ?

I believe legally you're supposed to sleep in the same bed.

[meatwad]

I believe legally you're supposed to sleep in the same bed.

Really? How did Lucy and Ricky get around that one?

[Escape_Driver]

I believe legally you're supposed to sleep in the same bed.

And how do you prove that ?

[Ya_know]

I believe legally you're supposed to sleep in the same bed.

That's some dumb sh!t! You must have had crack on your cornflakes again...

In domestic partnerships, you must sign an affidavit, or similar statement (typically requires notary stamp) asserting sole commitment to your partner in order to receive benefits which cater towards this kind of arrangement. Many employers offer this for medical insurance. If it is a marriage, a license must be attained, and marriage ceremony performed by someone with the vested power.

You could sleep on two different sides of a state for all anyone else cares beyond that!

[Escape_Driver]

So how do you stop abuse of the system

P.S I know that men and women already abuse the system.

[Jediab]

I do not think that you can stop it. Not without serious privacy, and or civil rights violations. And that would open a whole new can of worms.

[arch0nmyc0n]

That's some dumb sh!t! You must have had crack on your cornflakes again...

In domestic partnerships, you must sign an affidavit, or similar statement (typically requires notary stamp) asserting sole commitment to your partner in order to receive benefits which cater towards this kind of arrangement. Many employers offer this for medical insurance. If it is a marriage, a license must be attained, and marriage ceremony performed by someone with the vested power.

You could sleep on two different sides of a state for all anyone else cares beyond that!

Um in Canada we have Common Law marriages which means if you live together for six months+ you are considered "common law" which is a sorta marriage. But how do they seperate room mates from actual married couples? you have to sleep in the same bed... so don't go getting all in my face buddy cause that's the way it works around here or so I've been told... so my crackflakes are still just regular cornflakes today... unless of course I'm I was lied to... which wouldn't suprise me with the Canadian government lately... and lawyers...